U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-24-2013, 09:14 PM
 
535 posts, read 795,766 times
Reputation: 199

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658 View Post
I was not there to take a video of Jesus saying the famous words to Peter.

I am assuming you want to say the first Christians were Jews in the Temple reading the OT while discussing Jesus orally (they did not have the NT yet).

Or maybe you want to say that the Catholic Church did not exist until Constantine. That is a common piece of misinformation passed by ministers to the parishioners. In any event this is very easy to refute because there are hundreds of early Christian documents.

Or perhaps you want to say that Christianity in the 1st century was Protestant.

Or perhaps you are talking about the competition. Those that followed the Gospel of Thomas, the Gnostics, or the followers of Marcion. You tell me.

In any event here is a letter from Ignatius in 110 AD. This is clearly Catholic:

To the Smyrnaeans



Once again, I assume you are saying that the Jews were the first Christians when Jesus walked the Earth. And I will gladly give you that.
It's not just the Jews but at least we can agree on that. Of course I'm not suggesting the beginnings of church plantings by the apostles were Protestant. But, they also weren't Roman Catholic either. Do you think if someone walked up to a first century Christian and asked what they were, they'd answered Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, or Lutheran? Of course not. They were simply Christian. If you want to do the little 'c' big 'C' thing then it was in the 2nd century the word catholic was used to denote the 'universal' or 'inclusive' church. In this sense the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, and some Methodists identify as catholic as a continuation of the original church. On the topic of RCC I notice that as of August 29,2013 on Wikipedia what used to be the heading RCC is now referred to as CC or all those in communion with the Holy See. I think it's kind of sneaky that the RCC claims to be the one true church that was founded in Judea. That would be like the Germans claiming the Poles were German under the Nazi occupation. I can't imagine any 1st century converted Jew who would have identified as a Roman. Maybe with a spear at his throat.

I feel bad you and Janelle are thrown into a defensive posture all the time. I just want you guys to think about salvation. I wouldn't be a very good Christian if I wasn't doing that. I don't think there are multiple paths. I'm not saying one church is better than another. Some are very full of themselves. My problem with Sacred Tradition is when it is used to justify umbilical doctrine. By definition Sacred Tradition is not to contradict the Bible. There is a BIG difference between the RCC and Orthodox definition and use of Sacred Tradition.

Julian, you seem like a very sincere, intelligent, and genuine person. I've seen you peel off the defensive layers and question things like transubstantiation before on this forum. I'm not trying to convince you to become a Protestant. I just want to make sure you're on the right path to heaven. I hope this doesn't get a moderator cut.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-24-2013, 09:22 PM
 
9,765 posts, read 6,726,032 times
Reputation: 2484
Quote:
Originally Posted by Priscilla Martin View Post
It's not just the Jews but at least we can agree on that. Of course I'm not suggesting the beginnings of church plantings by the apostles were Protestant. But, they also weren't Roman Catholic either. Do you think if someone walked up to a first century Christian and asked what they were, they'd answered Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, or Lutheran? Of course not. They were simply Christian. If you want to do the little 'c' big 'C' thing then it was in the 2nd century the word catholic was used to denote the 'universal' or 'inclusive' church. In this sense the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, and some Methodists identify as catholic as a continuation of the original church. On the topic of RCC I notice that as of August 29,2013 on Wikipedia what used to be the heading RCC is now referred to as CC or all those in communion with the Holy See. I think it's kind of sneaky that the RCC claims to be the one true church that was founded in Judea. That would be like the Germans claiming the Poles were German under the Nazi occupation. I can't imagine any 1st century converted Jew who would have identified as a Roman. Maybe with a spear at his throat.

I feel bad you and Janelle are thrown into a defensive posture all the time. I just want you guys to think about salvation. I wouldn't be a very good Christian if I wasn't doing that. I don't think there are multiple paths. I'm not saying one church is better than another. Some are very full of themselves. My problem with Sacred Tradition is when it is used to justify umbilical doctrine. By definition Sacred Tradition is not to contradict the Bible. There is a BIG difference between the RCC and Orthodox definition and use of Sacred Tradition.

Julian, you seem like a very sincere, intelligent, and genuine person. I've seen you peel off the defensive layers and question things like transubstantiation before on this forum. I'm not trying to convince you to become a Protestant. I just want to make sure you're on the right path to heaven. I hope this doesn't get a moderator cut.
I don't disagree with most of your post. I only have a couple of issues which are quite minor.


Saul of Tarsus was a Roman. In fact Romans were Ok with Jews as long as they did not cause trouble. In Roman times everybody was allowed to practice their own religion and Christians that caused no problems were left alone.


Regarding salvation: I don't think about that at all. Catholics assume they are saved if they grow up Catholic. Salvation is achieved by Baptism, Communion, and Confirmation. There is no sudden epiphany for most folks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2013, 10:33 PM
 
Location: Denver, CO
9,279 posts, read 5,491,414 times
Reputation: 4046
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658 View Post
There were a lot of of wacky points of views in Early Christianity. Some followed Marcion who felt the entire OT was wrong and proposed an NT only Bible. Others followed Thomas. Others were not certain of the divinity of Jesus. There were Gnostics and other varieties. You are free to also quote them.


However, 'it is what it is": What eventually emerge out of the visit of Jesus was the Catholic Church. And there is much more written evidence to support this point of view. And of course there is history. After all is said and done the CC was the most formidable force of Western Civilization and responsible for bringing Christianity to the world. I encourage to visit all of Europe as a tourist the influence of the Church is easy to see.
But, Julian, the historical veneration of tradition in equality with scripture is a relatively NEW concept despite the official Vatican documents stating differently---

Sacred tradition and sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, which is committed to the Church. . . She [the Church] has always regarded the Scriptures together with sacred tradition as the supreme rule of faith, and will ever do so. Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation” (Dei Verbum), Documents of Vatican II, par.9, 10, 21, p. 117, 125

However, in fact, those traditions were adopted between 1545-1563:

Quote:

The greatest weight in the Council's decrees is given to the sacraments. The seven sacraments were reaffirmed and the Eucharist pronounced to be a true propitiatory sacrifice as well as a sacrament, in which the bread and wine were consecrated into the Eucharist (thirteenth and twenty-second sessions). The term "transubstantiation" was used by the Council, but the specific Aristotelian explanation given by Scholasticism was not cited as dogmatic.
Instead, the decree states that Christ is "really, truly, substantially present" in the consecrated forms. The sacrifice of the Mass was to be offered for dead and living alike and in giving to the apostles the command, "do this in remembrance of me," Christ conferred upon them a sacerdotal power. The practice of withholding the cup from the laity was confirmed (twenty-first session) as one which the Church Fathers had commanded for good and sufficient reasons; yet in certain cases the Pope was made the supreme arbiter as to whether the rule should be strictly maintained.
-----
Also, the Bible and Church Tradition (not mere customs but the ancient Tradition that made up part of the Catholic faith) were equally authoritative.

(older traditions were also reaffirmed)
Other Catholic practices that drew the ire of reformers within the Church, such as Indulgences, pilgrimages, the veneration of saints and relics, and the veneration of the Virgin Mary were strongly reaffirmed.
Council of Trent - New World Encyclopedia

To me the Vatican documents are the equivalent of the scribal additions to scripture-- a sort of "after the fact" retelling of a story to refute the then current heresy of Protestantism. The church had no need to spell any of this out previously, but the heretical movements of the present day demanded a re-writing of history. Much like early Christians provided additions particularly to Matthew and Luke in order to fight the heresies perceived in their times.

I have some trouble even with the council of Nicea which was 1200 years earlier and MUCH closer to the events of Jesus. Their selection of letters and books to include in the Bible demand great study and effort to see what axe they were grinding--but grinding they were. When it comes to the Council of Trent the entire set of meetings is very easy to identify, and the axe they are grinding is perfectly clear.
Although there may be parts of their conclusions I agree with, I most certainly disagree with the reason that they reached them.

To me there is neither sacred or secular, since all came from God. What can become unholy is what we do with what God gave us. That which is most holy is that which helps us look more like Jesus to others.

The closer we get to James, the closer we get to the earliest Christian leader after Jesus left earth. In that respect, Peter becomes a better role model than Paul.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2013, 07:30 AM
 
9,765 posts, read 6,726,032 times
Reputation: 2484
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden View Post
But, Julian, the historical veneration of tradition in equality with scripture is a relatively NEW concept despite the official Vatican documents stating differently---

Sacred tradition and sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, which is committed to the Church. . . She [the Church] has always regarded the Scriptures together with sacred tradition as the supreme rule of faith, and will ever do so. Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation” (Dei Verbum), Documents of Vatican II, par.9, 10, 21, p. 117, 125

However, in fact, those traditions were adopted between 1545-1563:

Council of Trent - New World Encyclopedia

To me the Vatican documents are the equivalent of the scribal additions to scripture-- a sort of "after the fact" retelling of a story to refute the then current heresy of Protestantism. The church had no need to spell any of this out previously, but the heretical movements of the present day demanded a re-writing of history. Much like early Christians provided additions particularly to Matthew and Luke in order to fight the heresies perceived in their times.

I have some trouble even with the council of Nicea which was 1200 years earlier and MUCH closer to the events of Jesus. Their selection of letters and books to include in the Bible demand great study and effort to see what axe they were grinding--but grinding they were. When it comes to the Council of Trent the entire set of meetings is very easy to identify, and the axe they are grinding is perfectly clear.
Although there may be parts of their conclusions I agree with, I most certainly disagree with the reason that they reached them.

To me there is neither sacred or secular, since all came from God. What can become unholy is what we do with what God gave us. That which is most holy is that which helps us look more like Jesus to others.

The closer we get to James, the closer we get to the earliest Christian leader after Jesus left earth. In that respect, Peter becomes a better role model than Paul.
Religion is religion and it is man made. I would anticipate errors as well as a growing process.

I am glad the Church has changed. Interpreting God is no piece of cake because God remains a mystery. The reformers were correct in Protesting. Branching out is something else, but they remain catholics.

The Church is supposed to be guided by the Holy Spirit as per the NT and the words of Jesus. So I guess they can make changes as they see fit.


I have a little secret, but please don't tell other forum members. The NT books were picked because they jived with what Christians of that era wanted. The concept of Peter being the leader makes sense because Jesus said so despite the heroics of James and Paul. And more importantly, that is what Christians wanted. That is why the Church asked Constantine to build Saint Peters over the tomb of Peter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2013, 01:10 PM
 
Location: Southern Oregon
16,261 posts, read 7,650,467 times
Reputation: 1718
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658 View Post
The Church is supposed to be guided by the Holy Spirit as per the NT and the words of Jesus. So I guess they can make changes as they see fit.
The Church IS guided by the Holy Spirit. The problem comes when you define "the Church" as any one organization of men which might or might not be guided by the Spirit.

Btw, Jesus did not designate Peter as the leader. The "rock" argument was made up much later and won't stand up to investigation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2013, 01:30 PM
 
9,765 posts, read 6,726,032 times
Reputation: 2484
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift View Post
The Church IS guided by the Holy Spirit. The problem comes when you define "the Church" as any one organization of men which might or might not be guided by the Spirit.

Btw, Jesus did not designate Peter as the leader. The "rock" argument was made up much later and won't stand up to investigation.
If you read the entire passage of Jesus speaking to Peter is obvious Jesus designated Peter. But, most people interpret the Bible to fit their point of view. However, there is little ambiguity.


But, it does not really matter. History might have been different and it could have been Paul or like someone else said James. However, the early Christians believed by consensus that it was Peter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2013, 07:56 PM
 
Location: Southern Oregon
16,261 posts, read 7,650,467 times
Reputation: 1718
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658 View Post
If you read the entire passage of Jesus speaking to Peter is obvious Jesus designated Peter. But, most people interpret the Bible to fit their point of view. However, there is little ambiguity.
However, the early Christians believed by consensus that it was Peter.
Yje early Christians did NOT believe the church was built on Peter, that idea cam MUCH later i n norder to support the Bishops of Rome in their lust for power.

There is NO ambiguity in the "rock" passage for anyone who has fairly elementary understanding of language: you do NOT call the same thing both male and female. If you call it male, it is one thing the same kind of thing that is female is a different object.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2013, 10:11 PM
 
9,765 posts, read 6,726,032 times
Reputation: 2484
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift View Post
Yje early Christians did NOT believe the church was built on Peter, that idea cam MUCH later i n norder to support the Bishops of Rome in their lust for power.

There is NO ambiguity in the "rock" passage for anyone who has fairly elementary understanding of language: you do NOT call the same thing both male and female. If you call it male, it is one thing the same kind of thing that is female is a different object.
That has always been an extreme poor argument. Jesus was talking to Peter and there were no rock stars or Rolling Stones in the audience. The fact that the name Peter is similar to the term rock in Greek proves nothing. The passage is very direct and to the point.

Quote:
Matthew 16:16-18
King James Version (KJV)
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
You are incorrect when you say the idea of Peter being the first leader is NEW. Early Christians in the 2nd and 3rd century firmly believed Peter was the first leader. This is evident in many writings from that era. The very first thing Constantine did was to provide funds to the Catholic Church to build Saint Peters over the tomb of Peter. The supremacy of Peter was well known in Early Christianity.

But, lest assume you are correct and that Jesus said something else. So what? The Catholic Church would still be the first Christian Church following the visit of Jesus to Earth. What is the point in denying what Jesus said to Peter? Nothing changes other than someone else being named as first leader of the CC.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2013, 10:51 PM
 
19,950 posts, read 13,625,689 times
Reputation: 1973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658 View Post
That has always been an extreme poor argument. Jesus was talking to Peter and there were no rock stars or Rolling Stones in the audience. The fact that the name Peter is similar to the term rock in Greek proves nothing. The passage is very direct and to the point.



You are incorrect when you say the idea of Peter being the first leader is NEW. Early Christians in the 2nd and 3rd century firmly believed Peter was the first leader. This is evident in many writings from that era. The very first thing Constantine did was to provide funds to the Catholic Church to build Saint Peters over the tomb of Peter. The supremacy of Peter was well known in Early Christianity.

But, lest assume you are correct and that Jesus said something else. So what? The Catholic Church would still be the first Christian Church following the visit of Jesus to Earth. What is the point in denying what Jesus said to Peter? Nothing changes other than someone else being named as first leader of the CC.
Regardless of Peter being the first pope or not (and he wasnt), there is nothing in scripture to support the notion of papal infallibility. Not does it suggest that the Catholic Church couldn't be teaching error today.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2013, 08:12 AM
 
Location: Southern Oregon
16,261 posts, read 7,650,467 times
Reputation: 1718
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658 View Post
But, lest assume you are correct and that Jesus said something else. So what? The Catholic Church would still be the first Christian Church following the visit of Jesus to Earth. What is the point in denying what Jesus said to Peter? Nothing changes other than someone else being named as first leader of the CC.
Once again, your problem stems from thinking that the church is an organization of men with a need for a single "leader". It is not. It is the body of believers who acknowledge the headship of Christ and the leading of the spirit. Believers may be organized in a congregation in any location, but it is not "the church," it is the organization or location where the local "church" meets. His kingdom is not of this earth or organized in the manner of earthly institutions. Jesus is our high priest and king and we are all "priests" to ourselves.

(btw, by far the greatest percentage of the earliest commenters on the verse recognized that Peter's confession was the foundation of the church, but then they didn't have an ax to grind; they were not trying to establish a spurious authority for a power-hungry bishop)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top